Game as support / medic / hero... It's quite sad

[ratiasu@hotmail.co.jp 122]

Welcome to the truth about human nature.  It probably wouldn't be much different in a real apocalypse (except maybe in places like Japan).

 

You'll find kind and cooperative players.  Maybe far and few between, but we're out there.

Japan is one of the last countries I'd like to be in during an apocalypse, and I'm a Japan fanboy... Preferably Canada or Iceland. Yup, Iceland... Or Micronesia, and start my own country!

But yeah, it's sad. I KOS armed people, but punching people in the face who just offered to help you is just sad.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Ratiasu

[Mutonizer 78]

I agree with this.  This is a ZOMBIE apocalypse, not an "everyone that survived the apocalypse" apocalypse.  IRL, I think people would be far more fearful of the zombies and would seek out other uninfected humans to help them survive, if for no other reason than there is strength in numbers.  The worst thing to do to a person in a zombie apocalypse would be to kick them out of the community, leaving them to fend for themselves.

 

DayZ will never work as such though, don't think it's even meant to. Engine just can't handle amounts necessary to create a threat, external communication systems (teamspeak, etc) negate anything the game tries to achieve in-game social wise and, of course, it's only a game, some people just don't care whatsoever.

 

It's a very interesting gaming experiment though, that's why I spent money on it, but I don't expect it to ever achieve anything close to what some think (and hope) it should, nor will it ever be "finished" I think.

 

Rule #1: Always have a handgun. I prefer the chest holster, but you can do backpack. You can beat long guns with just a pistol if you do it right, plus gun beats axe usually.

Rule #2: Try to walk as much as possible. If you are walking people don't think you are coming to attack them or steal 'their' loot.

Rule #3: Escalation of force and awareness. Always keep an eye on what is going on around you.

 

That's exactly how I've been playing for the past week. Very interesting style :)

Edited December 29, 2013 by Mutonizer

[irichey25 17]

Welcome to the truth about human nature.  It probably wouldn't be much different in a real apocalypse (except maybe in places like Japan).

 

You'll find kind and cooperative players.  Maybe far and few between, but we're out there.

http://www.redcross.org/what-we-do/disaster-relief/hurricane-recovery-program

"truth of human nature" "wouldn't be different." 

[DevilDog (DayZ) 455]

 

 

That's exactly how I've been playing for the past week. Very interesting style :)

I really enjoy it. The mod I just rushed around everywhere, from place to place to place just trying to all the loot in the world. I had tents and cars and more tents and crap everywhere. Going to play this a bit different. I just want to walk around the cities and enjoy the game. It feels weird to throw away M4s that I find but I got used to it.

[Mutonizer 78]

I really enjoy it. The mod I just rushed around everywhere, from place to place to place just trying to all the loot in the world. I had tents and cars and more tents and crap everywhere. Going to play this a bit different. I just want to walk around the cities and enjoy the game. It feels weird to throw away M4s that I find but I got used to it.

 

Yea same, then I started walking as a fresh spawn, and figured, well, I might as well go unarmed civilian and just travel about, see how people react. I'm not actually a "medic", I just travel around the map, loot some stuff, share other stuff, be very friendly and talkative.

Very relaxed play-style though I do check my surrounding a LOT and don't play dumb whatsoever. I just...don't do hostile actions and try to be very overt, see how it goes :)

 

Probably gonna end up randomly shot by a nobody but it's interesting as long as it lasts.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Mutonizer

[jaginun 87]

http://www.redcross.org/what-we-do/disaster-relief/hurricane-recovery-program

"truth of human nature" "wouldn't be different." 

 

Don't forget though that these people will stay in those places for 6 months, after which they fly back to their comfy homes and get to hear people praise their charity. People can be selfless when their safe, but your primal instincts kick in when it's them or you.

 

Considering he would share his supplies,knows a trick or two anfd would help you to survive it would be the most stupid thing to hurt him.I doubt that anyone would kill anyone without a real reason in an apocalypse. I read a book where something similar happened(instead of zombies it was extremely dangerous monster-vampires) and when some group of humans attacked a convoy everyon was extremely surprised and horrified by the fact that someone would attack fellow humans in such a dire situation. That seems much closer to reality.

 

Yeah, being cooperative would be the logical option, but people wouldn't think logically. For example, if you planned your zombie escape plan, it would probably accept the fact that your loved ones might get bitten or lost, and you would have to soldier on. But in an actual situation, you would choose the illogical option to save (or try to save) them, we all would. It's not our minds doing the thinking, it's our genetics.

[irichey25 17]

Don't forget though that these people will stay in those places for 6 months, after which they fly back to their comfy homes and get to hear people praise their charity. People can be selfless when their safe, but your primal instincts kick in when it's them or you.

 

 

Yeah, being cooperative would be the logical option, but people wouldn't think logically. For example, if you planned your zombie escape plan, it would probably accept the fact that your loved ones might get bitten or lost, and you would have to soldier on. But in an actual situation, you would choose the illogical option to save (or try to save) them, we all would. It's not our minds doing the thinking, it's our genetics.

But they still went, gave food, water, rebuild homes and such. They still helped. Last time I checked they didn't charge in there with rifles and massacred everyone they saw

[Mutonizer 78]

But they still went, gave food, water, rebuild homes and such. They still helped. Last time I checked they didn't charge in there with rifles and massacred everyone they saw

 

That's because one power still had a reliable organization and the means to provide help, while another had trouble to solve. An apocalypse setting like DayZ assumes a total and global breakdown in both civilian and military structures. 

 

Maslow's basic principle: you cannot help others, if you're yourself barely able to survive.

[jaginun 87]

But they still went, gave food, water, rebuild homes and such. They still helped. Last time I checked they didn't charge in there with rifles and massacred everyone they saw

 

You're misconstruing my point, the people helping were surviving well themselves, and the survivors of the natural disasters had nothing they needed or posed any threat. And I'm pretty sure a survival instinct isn't about killing everything you see, it's about getting the upperhand, whether that means killing for it or not.

[irichey25 17]

That's because one power still had a reliable organization and the means to provide help, while another had trouble to solve. An apocalypse setting like DayZ assumes a total and global breakdown in both civilian and military structures. 

 

Maslow's basic principle: you cannot help others, if you're yourself barely able to survive.

If there was a global pandemic like the thing in Day Z, you would have a lot more people who didn't kill on sight. There would be lots of groups helping people who don't have supplies, a place to stay and such. Much like the pandemics in Katrina, Hati, human nature isn't "hey hes lower in the rankings, lets kill him cause ya know. lol"

[Terpy (DayZ) 21]

DayZ will never work as such though, don't think it's even meant to. Engine just can't handle amounts necessary to create a threat, external communication systems (teamspeak, etc) negate anything the game tries to achieve in-game social wise and, of course, it's only a game, some people just don't care whatsoever.

 

It's a very interesting gaming experiment though, that's why I spent money on it, but I don't expect it to ever achieve anything close to what some think (and hope) it should, nor will it ever be "finished" I think.

 

Not sure what you're talking about when you say "DayZ will never work as such", but trust me, by the time the game reaches retail release, the zombies will be a MUCH larger threat than they are now.  There will be far more of them and they won't be as easy to beat / evade.  They're already more of a threat than they were in the mod.  I realize there will still be people who don't care, but those people will eventually quit when it becomes "too hard" for them to continue playing as they do today because they're too busy battling zombies, they didn't come here to play a zombie apocalypse game.

[Gdaddy22 299]

Really ? Are you THIS dumb to say that in a real zombie apocalypse people would shoot each other on sight ?

[irichey25 17]

You're misconstruing my point, the people helping were surviving well themselves, and the survivors of the natural disasters had nothing they needed or posed any threat. And I'm pretty sure a survival instinct isn't about killing everything you see, it's about getting the upperhand, whether that means killing for it or not.

Exactly. People who have more and things to donate will help, they wont go and kill for more. You and I aren't struggling with food and such at the moment correct? YOu don't see us walking into a school, seeing someone who doesn't have as much as we do, and than proceeding the beat the shit out of him cause he has less than us do we? (i sure hope you don't)

[InflatedLyric 39]

Those damn japanese, always rewriting cranial instincts!

 

Seriously though, I doubt it would change according to cultural teachings. I know we all expect the japanese guy to sacrifice himself for the protagonist in a movie (Predators anyone?) but it's called human nature for a reason, because we all share it. It might be a bit degrading for someone like that to do what must be done, but nothing would change in the long run.

 

And on topic, it's a Z-Apoc/survival sim. The fact that the game is forcing players to act like that to a chartible person can only mean that it's meeting it's intended target of releasing people's survival instincts, can't it?

 

 

You're one of the last alive, which must mean you are capable of at least some meagre selfishness, starving with nothing on you, scared for your life, and then you meet the OP with food and water and everything you need to survive. You're expected to share with him, giving up potential supplies to this person you've never met? Sorry to say, but in that situation the people still alive would likely wait until he's sleeping and bash his head in, if it meant you were gonna survive.

 

It does change according to cultural teachings.  It is called Individualism vs Collectivism.  People of Western Culture tend to score higher on Individualism and therefore low on Collectivism.  You clearly score higher on the scale for individualism.  Not a bad thing, it simply suggests that you think of yourself before you think about the group (or "collective").

[jaginun 87]

It does change according to cultural teachings.  It is called Individualism vs Collectivism.  People of Western Culture tend to score higher on Individualism and therefore low on Collectivism.  You clearly score higher on the scale for individualism.  Not a bad thing, it simply suggests that you think of yourself before you think about the group (or "collective").

 

Despite what I argue, I tend to be a charitable and collectivist person, but I do say that in a situation of extreme and severe disaster such as DayZ, people revert to a very selfish mindset, despite what they've been brought up on. Of course, it would have to be a disaster of unequalible measures, but the survivors of which would have to have a individualist leaning prior to the event in order to make it this far and be one of the last left alive.

[Mutonizer 78]

If there was a global pandemic like the thing in Day Z, you would have a lot more people who didn't kill on sight. There would be lots of groups helping people who don't have supplies, a place to stay and such. Much like the pandemics in Katrina, Hati, human nature isn't "hey hes lower in the rankings, lets kill him cause ya know. lol"

 

Actually I believe that for a short time afterwards, it'll small groups becoming dominant due to sheer brutality/firepower/will to dominate and control and a silent majority obeying. You usually need force of law to have a stable society and you need power/strength to have a force of law that works.

Then after some more time, society will slowly evolve once again with it's ups and downs as comfort and security returns.

[DevilDog (DayZ) 455]

So getting back on track here.

 

Yea same, then I started walking as a fresh spawn, and figured, well, I might as well go unarmed civilian and just travel about, see how people react. I'm not actually a "medic", I just travel around the map, loot some stuff, share other stuff, be very friendly and talkative.

Very relaxed play-style though I do check my surrounding a LOT and don't play dumb whatsoever. I just...don't do hostile actions and try to be very overt, see how it goes :)

 

Probably gonna end up randomly shot by a nobody but it's interesting as long as it lasts.

 

Yeah I end up taking some hostile fire. That is part of the fun though. I tried making contact with a guy tonight then his buddy came running out from behind a building with an M4, I took off, he got some shots off and hit me once, I ran into a building and more bullets went flying. I ended up losing them in the city and bandaging myself up. Then they were gone. It was a ton of fun though.

[Mutonizer 78]

So getting back on track here.

 

 

Yeah I end up taking some hostile fire. That is part of the fun though. I tried making contact with a guy tonight then his buddy came running out from behind a building with an M4, I took off, he got some shots off and hit me once, I ran into a building and more bullets went flying. I ended up losing them in the city and bandaging myself up. Then they were gone. It was a ton of fun though.

 

 

M4s, pistols and the like don't worry me too much, I'm usually careful enough and have enough experience with Arma engine to react or not be engaged at such range. Only thing that killed me so far since launch have been Mosins (with scopes I believe?). Some people are just aces with these and can shoot people running full speed hundreds meters away...can't do much about that really. Really a coward's weapon to me, even more so than most guns, but I totally respect their aiming skills, suck it up, give about 5 mins for them to loot me, then respawn  :)

Edited December 30, 2013 by Mutonizer

[serenityrick 218]

I have been playing 5 times in a row now without a weapon ( just medic + support ) in Cherno. 

 

My experience is very bad, I offer food, water etc., talk with them 5-10 minutes and they just punch / hit me down.

 

The friendly engages are very rare. I usually talk to fresh spawns there because I never find full geared people in Cherno.

 

You have any tips as hero / medic, any secret place to walk ?

 

I just don't get these people, why would a group talk with me 5 minutes and just hit me down ? I used to play medic with a gun / weapon and I instantly shot down at anytime.

 

I am not complaining about KOS but seriously fuck this paranoia. I don't have fun walking around killing people but only meeting 3 / 10 friendly people as unarmed medic because they want your loot is sad.

 

Remember: I don't whine about people shooting me, it's part of the game. I am just sad the most people working like that.

 

Just keep an eye on them. In order for them to hit you, they have to raise their fists. as SOON as you see them do that, put them down. 

[Etherimp 1323]

Welcome to the truth about human nature.  It probably wouldn't be much different in a real apocalypse (except maybe in places like Japan).

 

You'll find kind and cooperative players.  Maybe far and few between, but we're out there.

 

 

Actually, it's not human nature to be cold hearted and ruthless. It would probably be MUCH different in a real apocalypse. The difference here is... 1. Anonymity, 2. No real consequences, 3. No emotional investment. 

 

At the end of the day, DayZ characters are just a collection of pixels being controlled by a person you do not know.

 

It's much more difficult to take a life or hurt someone when you can look in their eyes.

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

Heroes are movie material, it IS going to be harder in a more "realistic" situation where you are exposed to real people.

 

Look at Gandhi or other people that marked history by being good samaritans. It's not easy, it doesn't always work, and it's not the best way to live long, free or unharmed.

[serenityrick 218]

It does change according to cultural teachings.  It is called Individualism vs Collectivism.  People of Western Culture tend to score higher on Individualism and therefore low on Collectivism.  You clearly score higher on the scale for individualism.  Not a bad thing, it simply suggests that you think of yourself before you think about the group (or "collective").

 

Individualism does not mean selfish..

 

Collectivism is more harmful to the individual because if shunning you from a group (or flat out killing you) is better for the collective, an authoritarian rule will have no problem doing that.

 

You can be charitable and practice/prefer individualism. But individuals don't like being FORCED to do anything for the collective nor should they be (my personal opinion)

[warmonger917 26]

Being caught in a natural disaster in 2004 i can say that the vast majority of people were amazing towards each other in the first instance. Which leads me to believe that human nature isn't as bad as people think, however im sure that the longer the problem went on i.e. a "viral pandemic" then people would become more of a threat to other people if local governments weren't put in place.

 

I dont think it would be as bad as hollywood makes out, but i think borders would become "local" and it would eventualy become very tribal.

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

Individualism does not mean selfish..

 

Collectivism is more harmful to the individual because if shunning you from a group (or flat out killing you) is better for the collective, an authoritarian rule will have no problem doing that.

 

You can be charitable and practice/prefer individualism. But individuals don't like being FORCED to do anything for the collective nor should they be (my personal opinion)

Individualism "is" selfishness, you put yourself before the good of the group after all. That is essentially selfish from a collective standpoint, like... what makes "you" more worthy than anyone for instance :) (it's a good debate to have around a nice wine)

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

Being caught in a natural disaster in 2004 i can say that the vast majority of people were amazing towards each other in the first instance. Which leads me to believe that human nature isn't as bad as people think, however im sure that the longer the problem went on i.e. a "viral pandemic" then people would become more of a threat to other people if local governments weren't put in place.

 

I dont think it would be as bad as hollywood makes out, but i think borders would become "local" and it would eventualy become very tribal.

I think a good part of this is that it's in everyone's best interest to help to bring everything back in order after a catastrophe. But what if the catastrophe is of such magnitude that there is nothing to "go back to" ? What would then be people's reaction?